Talk:Nyota Uhura
Animated adventures I think the subtitle "Animated Adventures" should remain, to clearly separate that from the rest of the article, there not all Trek fans regard TAS as canon. Ottens 18:56, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) :But MA does. Also, the heading breaks the POV of the article - since the animated episodes are just normal missions in the Trek POV. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:36, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST) ::Beat me to it. A section title in the body of the article should not have a POV that it was a cartoon. Perhaps some other descriptive term specifying these were the "later" years of the same mission. Since its all part of the same cast, crew, and five year mission, I have a hard time find any need to make a serious distinction. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:01, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) Okay then. On a sidenote, what does POV mean? Ottens 23:12, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::point of view. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:24, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) Commander rank According to a note at the bottom of the page (Recently added), Uhura was promoted to Commander in TWOK, but states the year 2285. I moved the note to Uhura's information from TWOK. Does anybody have confirmation on her promotion for either TWOK or The Search for Spock (If it's the later, it needs to be moved). -- Enzo Aquarius 21:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) TAS Appearances I've removed the TAS references and placed them here because most of it appears to be copied from Sheryl's Star Trek Site: Star Trek Women. It's not word-for-word, but it is suspiciously similar. I've decided to move it here to avoid the complications of dealing with a . --Gvsualan 10:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :When under the influence of the women of Taurus II, the male crewmembers of the ''Enterprise were incapacitated by the siren's song. Lieutenant Uhura took command of the vessel, and assigned Nurse Chapel to acting Chief Medical Officer. They led a landing party down to the planet's surface to rescue Capt. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy and Lt. Carver. ( ) :When the ''Enterprise visited the Shore Leave Planet, Uhura was abducted by the planet's computer, which was in charge of the planet after its Keeper had died. The computer felt that it was being taken advantage of, but Uhura reasoned with it, and ceased its hostile actions against the Enterprise crew. ( ) :When Uhura, along with the rest of the crew, contracted Dramian Auroral plague, she collapsed on the bridge from the effects of the disease. She would have died, if Dr. McCoy had not found a cure. ( ) :''In 2270, Sulu, McCoy and Uhura were trapped in the holographic recreation room, when the ship's computer began exhibiting aberrant behaviour following the ''Enterprise s passage through an energy cloud. ( ) Later that year, the Enterprise entered an anti-matter universe. The crew experienced accelerated reverse aging, and Uhura was reduced to infancy. Following the vessel's return to normal space, Uhura and the other crewmembers were returned to their normal ages, by use of the transporter. ( ) Given name Considering, as noted at the bottom of the page, that both Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols both approved of it, should we put a full name of Nyota Uhura at the top of the page? Or is it still considered not canon enough for such treatment? We could do this without renaming the article, to avoid confusion. --Kitch 13:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) : That sounds reasonable to me. Keep the article titles "Uhura", have the first line read "Nyota Uhura" and then italicize below it: ::"Although not mentioned on screen, Nyota was approved by Roddenberry and Nichols" :...or however it is written in the article. We have done such things with other individuals - basing thier full names from what was written in the script, but never spoken on screen. --Gvsualan 16:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I could swear I've heard it on screen: When Kirk asks Uhura to play back the probe's call in TVH, I'm pretty sure he calls her "Nyota." ::Two points: First, "Nyota" was never heard or seen on-screen, including , and never included in a script, writers' guide, or graphic. Second, if the name is to be added it will need to have a citation to some permitted resource that states her name is Nyota. Rumor or anecdotal evidence (including something Nichols wrote in a biography), without more, should not form the basis of inclusion of data in the main body of the article. It's fine for background, though (but should really have some kind of cite there too as to how we know this claim to have been made). If it is in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, though, that would be enough to include it (though noted as non-canon); maybe that's worth looking into. Aholland 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :::Aholland is correct; the name was never used on-screen. The first time I heard it, however, was not in Nichols' biography, but it William Shatner's Star Trek Memories, a documentary special. She recounted the story of how someone (I forgot who, I think it was one of the writers) suggested the name "Nyota" for her character. Nichols loved the name, and, according to Nichols, so did Gene Roddenberry. As Aholland said, this does not make the name official, but we can cite her biography and the documentary as a source when explaining the name in the background section. --From Andoria with Love 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ::::I've never quite understood how people hear the word "Nyota" in Kirk's line. What they hear as "Nyota" is "Can you" in the line which goes something like, "Can you play back the probe's transmissions?" Sir Rhosis 21:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I'll have to listen again. I remember reading a writer in "The Best of Trek" claiming that he invented "Nyota" and ran it past Nichols, who loved it. (He was responding to someone who claimed "Penda" huh? was the name.) I just listened. Kirk says, "en-yota, let's hear the probe's transmission." No request, so no "can you." He calls her "Uhura" a few seconds later. ::Perhaps Kirk was mumbling. The script identifies her only as "Uhura". The line in the closed captioning (not in the script) is "Can you let us hear the probe's transmission?". There is nothing on Nyota, and I believe any conclusion other than it is not used is unjustified. Aholland 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ::::Shatner was indeed mumbling, but if you listen closely, he does say "Can you" As I said before, I don't get why people insist on hearing what is not said. J! H! C! ENOUGH ALREADY! Sir Rhosis 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :::::Paramount's StarTrek.com refers to her in the animated series character listings as . Does this qualify as canon? Hoogamagoo 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) :::Not until it's mentioned in a film or TV episode, I'm afraid. --From Andoria with Love 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) New movie The new movie states her name as Nyota can we site that or do we have to wait until December? Morder 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) :Is it out yet? Nope. For all we know, that line may be cut from the film by the time it airs. -- Sulfur 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ::It's OK to site it, though. I don't know why anyone here would have a problem with that. Look. Somebody already did it. SennySix 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) :::Again, no, it's not okay to cite it... not until the movie comes out. For one thing, we don't know for sure whether or not her first name will be revealed in the movie or even if it's in the script – that's just rumor and speculation at this point. By the way, we will have to wait until May 2009, not December. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) :::: Well, the IMDB mentions it in the cast and bio... don't know if IMDB is a good reference or not. -- 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC) :It's not. :) -- Sulfur 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) ::: Don't we have no official reference for her prime universe name being 'Nyota'? Sure, it's in the new movie, but she was born after the change in the timeline. What do others think about this? --AnonyQ 11:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::: I think that since no one else's name was changed in the new timeline, including Chekov who was now born in 2241 instead of 2245, it can be accepted that Uhura's first name in the prime timeline was Nyota as well. IndyK1ng 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :: While it's very likely that her name is Nyota in the prime universe, it is not certain. Anyone else agree it should be changed? --AnonyQ 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::This sub-discussion should be merged with the other discussion below. On-topic - yes, I agree that this is not "certain". Especially seeing that one of the characters is now 4 years younger than before, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that other, much more minor things (like a given name) at least might have changed as well. I brought this up in another discussion, where the argument was basically just brushed aside. Sometimes, "reasonable assumption" still seems to get in the way of being as accurate as possible. -- Cid Highwind 11:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::This isn't the point, I know, but I feel like I need to point it out: the new Chekov (born 2241) is four years older than the original (born 2245), not younger. -- 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :: Is there any way I can draw more attention to this/get this changed? Or could I just go ahead and change it? Additionally, (somewhat related), why is there a reference to the 2009 film after the first line describing Uhura? None of that information is relevant to Uhura in the original timeline. --AnonyQ 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Read below in the other section AnonyQ — Morder 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC) talk:M'Umbra PLEASE see Memory Alpha talk:Canon policy before making further changes to this article and the notation of it being non-canon. It is NOT Memory-Alpha policy to delete non-canon articles just because they are non-canon. Aholland 06:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC) I have no conceptual issue with your change, but the term you are searching for is Restricted Validity Resource. (The higher value one is a "valid resource", which this material is not.) I'll make the change so it is technically correct. This will NOT, in and of itself, result in the article being deleted - in case you were still concerned. Aholland 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) There is no term for "valid resource"; it has no meaning in the policy and is no more understandable to a layman than "Restricted Validity Resource". If we are going to use an explanation (unnecessary given policy, but it doesn't hurt), why not use words that track back so that people can actually see what is going on? The point isn't to confuse people even more. Aholland 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :Actually, I probably should have left the sarcasm out in this case, my apologies. My true reason for reverting it was to get you to bring up the change in wording at Template talk:NonCanonValid rather than delete the template from the article. --From Andoria with Love 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC) ::No problem. I took your advice and discussed it back there. (Although it took me a few minutes to find it - I'm not adept at template usage and such on a wiki!) Aholland 07:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Merge Under our current , restricted validity resources do not get their own articles. This should get a mention in the background of the Uhura article. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :I'm not getting the same impression from the canon policy page. Read under 'Restricted Validity Resources and Initial Article Creation.' Jaf 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf Then why are we merging all the prototypes? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :I suspect it is because we don't really know what our policy is. There was a lawyer who showed up a while back and pointed out the fact that our pages contradicted our policy, he suggested we delete a bunch and everyone got mad at him, then he suggested we change our policy to match our pages and we got mad at him again. After a while he left and didn't come back. Then the issue just kind of went away. Jaf 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::I support the merging of this with Uhura. We need to decide whether we allow information from only canon sources or from canon sources plus reference materials. We can't allow some articles from the latter and not have others. The decision has apparently already been made not to have individual pages based on information from reference materials; this would appear to count in that area. It also appears that, if that is the case, that our canon policy needs updating. --From Andoria with Love 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Swahili In Swahili uhura is nothing. Freedom is uhuru. You can look at the dictionary: http://www.yale.edu/swahili/ -- 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :The above is correct; "uhura" means nothing in Swahili. The article had the right information in the background section so I simply deleted it from the main body of the article. Aholland 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ::Someone also posted her given name's meaning - both are unnecessary and weren't stated in canon anyway. — Morder (talk) 10:56, October 6, 2009 (UTC) Unstereotypical? Was the role really that unstereotypical and breakthrough? She answered the phones! The role of communications officer clearly isn't enough of a job to occupy one full-time, and was later partially automated and partially given to tactical or the conn. -- 08:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC) :It was full time in a lot more than just TOS. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC) :In those days, having a black woman in that kind of position, with that kind of visibility, was extremely controversial. She sits right behind the Capt. so every time the camera focuses on him, you see her, too. Don't think the Great Bird didn't plan it that way. He knew exactly what he was doing. I lived through those times and I remember what I saw on the evening news. Today, we take a black person on TV portrayed as equal or in charge of something for granted, but not back then. The political climate at that time was searing. The Civil Rights movement was in full swing, and a lot of people were against it. They feared it was a Communist front; they feared an all-out black revolution. Gene had to fight almost as hard with the network to keep Uhura as he did to keep Spock. It's something like this; Forty years from now, some people might say that electing BHO wasn't that much of a breakthrough because we will probably have had more black Presidents by then and people will have become so used to black leaders. (The same holds true if HRC would have won.) But having seen what I saw in the 60s, I think it is not really overstating it to say that Nichelle Nicholes' presence on the bridge of the Enterprise contributed to ultimately getting BHO elected. --KTJ 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Legacy The section entitled Legacy makes some unsourced claims. It currently has these three items: *During the first year of the series, Nichols was tempted to leave the show as she felt her role lacked significance, but a conversation with Martin Luther King, Jr. changed her mind. King personally encouraged her to stay on the show, telling her that he was a big fan of the series and told her she "could not give up" as she was playing a vital role model for young black children and women across the country. After the first season, Uhura's role on the series was expanded beyond merely manning her console. *Former NASA astronaut Mae Jemison has cited Nichols' role of Uhura as her inspiration for wanting to become an astronaut. *Whoopi Goldberg has also spoken of Nichols' influence. It was seeing Nichols play a prominent role on network television that allowed her to see that African American women could contribute more than just as domestic servants. She is often fond of recalling that when she saw Uhura on-screen for the first time she ran out of the room telling everyone in her house, "I just saw a black woman on television; and she ain't no maid!!" I copied a source URL (a Stanford University news bulletin) from Jemison's Wikipedia article to cite the second point. The Whoopi Goldberg article on Wikipedia has this same information, but it states the Nichelle Nichols as its source. If she is the only source, maybe this should be reworded, because as it is now it makes it look like Whoopi goes around telling this story to everyone who'll listen. Hokstein 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :I put citation requests on the first and last points. The fact that Nichol's was an inspiration for Goldberg is easy to cite (I put the TNG companion down), but that exact anecdote unfortunately is not in the book. We can remove it if it doesn't get cited.– Cleanse 06:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :Okay, these claims were cited by User:DarkHorizon and User:Leandar. Thanks guys!– Cleanse 10:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ::Yes, much better. :) Hokstein 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Name I have asked this question on the alternate reality character's discussion page. Is the name 'Nyota' canon? I've seen it in books, but never heard it used in the mainline reality. Or was it used in ? – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :It was used in the new film, and the assumption is that since the name Nyota was used in non-canonical sources before being used in the film, it's reasonable to say that the original Uhura's first name was Nyota as well. It's a bit like Kirk's middle name being "Tiberius" — that was first used in the animated series, which for a long while Paramount said was non-canonical, but then "Tiberius" was used in Star Trek VI. :If you wanted to be really anal, you could say that there's no solid canonical evidence that "Uhura Prime"'s first name was Nyota, but it's a reasonable assumption. I don't have a problem with it. —Josiah Rowe 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Forget the assumptions. Long as it was used in the new film, it is canon. :)– ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I suppose that depends on if Uhura is older or younger than Kirk. If she was born before Kirk her name is definitely Nyota because both timelines are the same before the Romulan ship appeared. If she is born after Kirk, then there is the odd chance that the temporal disturbance caused her parents to name her something different than Uhura prime. - Starfield 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::This article says she was born in 2239, thus after Nero's incursion. In this case, I think she should be moved back to Uhura. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::::As I state above in the discussion section on the new movie, since no one else's name has changed as a result of the incursion, including that of Chekov who is now born in 2241 as opposed to 2245, I think it is safe to assume Nyota was Uhura's first name in the prime timeline as well as in the alternate universe.IndyK1ng 17:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::We must not assume anything. For Chekov, the reality alteration might have changed his birth year. For Uhura, it might have changed her name. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::::I have to agree with QuiGonJinn. Imagine what would have hapened if the Kelvin was taken out sooner, we were very close to having to deal with a "Tiberius Kirk". My point being, while personalities might follow what TPTB have termed "same crew, different day", everything else is fair game to change, including, as pointed out, the huge anomaly of Chekov being born several years later. Not to troll, but from what I've read about this discussion and the one at ten forward, it almost seems to be some peoples judgement is clouded by the sheer coolness of finaly knowning the name. We've never called a ship the USS xxxx when it was just refered on screen as xxxx, we never postulated a non-mirror universe Admiral Black, we never took facts purely from novelisations, and I don't see why this is any different. It's a very simple rule: if it's not mentioned on-screen, it's not canon, no matter how many kb talk page is dedicated to "it is safe to assume" or "would definitely benefit from additional info" or "it's reasonable to say" or "has been her non-canon first name in novels for decades" etc etc. Sorry if I rant, but I seriously don't understand why in this particular case these kinds of arguments aren't shot down instantly like they usualy are -- Capricorn 15:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::QuiGonJinn is correct as it is our policy to adhere to what was on screen. Only the alternate universe's Nyota name is canon and not the Prime Uhura's first name until stated in that universe. — Morder 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC) => I'm on the MA-fr and I agree with QuiGonJinn and Morder. Here we watch you everyday for your policy !!! Nice day C-IMZADI-4 16:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::Gene Roddenberry, Nichelle Nichols, and many others have all stated they selected "Nyota" as Uhura's first name. Star Trek is just the first production to state it within canon. All of the other character's names are the same as their prime counterparts – James Tiberius Kirk, Leonard McCoy, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Andreivich Chekov, Montgomery Scott, Christopher Pike, Amanda Grayson – so it stands to reason that Nyota is no different. Also, the writers have stated that these are the same characters (names and everything), only with somewhat different experiences. With the all the evidence showing the contrary, I believe there needs to be evidence that the prime timeline's Uhura was not named Uhura. And if all else fails, there's always this. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::There's already precedent with Hikaru Sulu (mirror) (just known as "Sulu"), and that timeline was *way* different. Same character, same name (unless proven otherwise, vis a vis Maximilian Forrest).--Tim Thomason 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Please also check the other discussion about this topic above. I think that this is assumption, not fact. After all, one of those characters that are "the same" lost 4 years of his life - what's a different name compared to that? Also, as has been brought up, had George Kirk crashed the ship just seconds earlier, Junior's name would have been Tiberius only. Of course "new Uhura" is called Nyota because that name has been around for years regarding "old Uhura" - but that doesn't make the assumption made here any more valid. If it's from a "good enough" resource, Uhura's article might have been moved years ago. -- Cid Highwind 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::If we change Uhura based on what "might not" be her first name, then we have to apply that same logic to Hikaru Sulu (mirror), Pavel Chekov (mirror), Nyota Uhura (mirror), Leonard McCoy (mirror), Montgomery Scott (mirror), Elim Garak (mirror), Charles Tucker III (mirror), and possibly more. In short, this is a wholesale change in how we deal with simple article naming. The producers intended Nyota to be the name for the character, and we're apparently disregarding that.--Tim Thomason 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::Then we have to bite the bullet. — Morder 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :I'm with Shran and Tim on this. Yes, saying that Uhura Prime's first name is Nyota is an assumption — but it's a highly reasonable one, based on evidence at hand. If this really is "same crew, different day" then it is reasonable to assume that their names are the same. :If we're going to be that anal about Uhura, does anyone recall whether we heard Hikaru Sulu's first name in the new film? I'm pretty sure we didn't hear the name Amanda Grayson (though that was probably given in the credits). When a character exists in both realities, I think we can reasonably assume that the characters' names are the same. I think the burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. —Josiah Rowe 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Actually, Sulu introduced himself to Pike as "Hikaru Sulu," but yeah, good point.--Tim Thomason 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::OK. Since speaking to Shran, I was unaware of the production source of Nyota beyond this movie. Therefore I switch my vote to keep.... — Morder 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::Those production sources being Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols. Nichols stated in William Shatner's Star Trek Memories and the TOS Season 2 DVD commentary that she and Gene decided upon Nyota for Uhura's first name. On Memory Alpha, we accept information from other cast and crew that wasn't stated on-screen, yet here we are ignoring Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols, plus the fact that Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman obviously meant for this to be the character's name, not just in that reality, but in the prime one, as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I strongly support keeping the article at "Nyota Uhura" as well, for the reasons above.– Cleanse 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I think it's worth noting that, if we're citing "production" as resource for this name, Uhura's "new timeline" name becomes completely irrelevant to the discussion. It need not and still should not be used to base the article title on. In fact, if we're allowing that production resource (do we?), it's just an oversight that the article hasn't been moved sooner. This might sound pretty anal, seeing that it still results in the same title, but I know how people are going to cite even the tiniest bit of policy deviation as precedence for whatever they like to change today. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::I for one support Nyota being kept. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::Hmm, I didn't know that Gene and Nichelle chose Nyota as Uhura's first name. In that case, I wonder why it hasn't been moved earlier, because as our canon policy states: "the only exception to the exclusion of production or reference material not seen on-screen from the main body of an article is for naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name." Thus, Nyota should be kept, but not because the name appeared in 2009's Star Trek, but rather because it was chosen by Roddenbury and Nichols. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Wow, seems I started a big debate here. After reading the different opinions and facts cited, I think the mainline reality character's name should stay as "Nyota Uhura" for two reasons that were raised here: *It is canon, as stated in . As Shran et. al. pointed out, it is canonically reasonable to think that the mainline reality character's name is the same as the alternate reality character's name. *Information stated by official, verified production sources such as cast and crew, such as seen on on DVD extra features, is, from what I have read, accepted on MA as canon. If Roddenberry and Nichols stated that the character's full name was intended to be "Nyota Uhura", even though the first name was never heard, then it should be treated as canon. – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :: Okay, it makes sense. I guess it's just hard to deal with seeing "Nyota" in front of Uhura after all these years of only having one name. --AnonyQ 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Looked over this, think it's a shame that everyone seemed to get swayed by the argument "Gene Rodenberry says it is!" That's the same Gene Rodenberry who wanted us all to forget Star Trek V? There is no canonical evidence that the Uhura from the original timeline was called Nyoto. Time had been changed by that point, everything was up for grabs, whatever the intent of the production team. Heck, everything in that movie is hard to square with what we saw what we saw in the old series even before Nero messed everything up: Starships with crews of a thousand and civillians onboard doesn't match anything we saw in Kirk's time. As far as this Uhura is concerned, no first name was ever given. – Skteosk 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC) :You're saying we should remember the fifth movie? No thanks. I'm a year and a half late to the party here, but when the original creator and actress give their support for a detail 16 or 17 years before it ends up on screen, and it's being used in licensed works, then yes, I'm inclined to give it weight. What I think is most important, however, is that it wasn't just a detail revealed in the film; it was a plot point. They teased us with it. They knew very well that they were saying, yes, Nyota is the character's name, and oh by the way it's always been her name. — LCARS 19:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Redux *Didn't want to create a new section, but just pointing out that it's never been established that Uhura's canon name in the normal timeline is "Nyota". The alternate timeline does nothing to change that since the alternate Uhura was born after the timeline changed. It's not reasonable to assume something is true in the alternate timeline then it is true in the normal timeline. Kirk's middle name was mentioned in TAS but didn't become canon til many years later. Uhura's first name in the main timeline is still unknown as far as canon is concerned. 05:03, September 8, 2014 (UTC) ::Actually, it is quite reasonable since all other main characters names are the same as the prime reality. That's just common sense. It's also better than one article having her full name and not the other one when we have a full name for her. 31dot (talk) 09:58, September 8, 2014 (UTC) Mother's name Taking another crack at this one -- what are the actual sources of Uhura's mother's name, Mumbha Mahia? The article currently states a laundry list of sources, and at least one, the Star Trek Chronology, is falsely listed -- it says nothing about her mother's name. Anyone have the Concordance or any other source that can verify what else is false in the article right now? -- Captain MKB 02:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Relationships Is it worth adding speculations about a possible relationship with Sulu? That seemed to be the subtext in several episodes--Sulu's glance at Uhura when she takes navigations in "Balance of Terror", for example, and the fact that when Nomad is wreaking havoc on the bridge in "The Changeling," Sulu's immediate reaction is to jump to Uhura's defense, despite the fact that she's obviously alive and relatively well, while Scotty's just been thrown across the bridge and may be injured or dead for all Sulu knows. Also, she and Christine Chapel exchange kisses on the cheek in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?". That would seem to indicate a friendship at least as close as any she might have had with Janice Rand (see Rand's entry).--Jim in NYC 09:15, October 17, 2009 (UTC)Jim in NYC :We're not here to speculate only state what was seen on screen/in the script/writer's intent (if documented). — Morder (talk) 11:01, October 17, 2009 (UTC) relationship with Scotty "In 2287, Uhura began to show some romantic interest in Montgomery Scott. Under the influence of Sybok, however, Uhura became more persuasive. Scotty, nevertheless, politely declined the advance, mindful of her "condition". However, the two are seen sharing a drink together after their mission to Nimbus III, walking closely and smiling at each other, therefore implying that some romantic progression had been made. (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) " I'm surprised no one has pointed it up that the only canon information here is that Sybok mindwarped her and under his influence she showed romantic feelings for Scotty. The rest is original research. These characters were friends, their interactions before and after that fact were friendly, therefore nothing romantic was actually implied there or directly stated in the source. Also, there is no mention of the following movies so the article is incomplete and wrongly assumes that they stayed together in the end which clash with the canon of the other movies that didn't develop their relationship as a romantic one. -- 19:13, January 13, 2013 (UTC) :As Morder stated above, we're not here to speculate but only state what was seen on screen/in the script/writer's intent, when it's possible. :So I edited that section accordingly and added a link to the original script. :Modifications I made and why: :- removed the part about the novels. Novels are not considered canon so I'm not sure they're relevant to any other article but the ones about said novels. :- reworded the first paragraph, specifically where it said "Uhura began to show some romantic interest in Montgomery Scott. Under the influence of Sybok, however, Uhura became more persuasive". :why I deleted the first part: while being under the influence of Sybok Uhura stated: "Sybok has simply put us in touch with feelings that we've always been afraid to express", therefore it's safe to assume that - prior that scene - she had never showed any romantic interest for him because it's Sybok the one who had put her in touch with said feelings. :- deleted: "However, the two are seen sharing a drink together after their mission to Nimbus III, walking closely and smiling at each other, therefore implying that some romantic progression had been made. " friends can't share a drink? The script has no mention of the scene/doesn't describe or imply any romantic progression between them. Did they ever kiss on screen or engage in explicitly romantic behavior around each other? Unless we have a quote by the writers stating that, if that is the case then it should be included here. :Furthermore there is no mention of an ongoing romance between them in the following movie(s), which makes the above mentioned statement even more inconsistent. -- 15:05, April 8, 2013 (UTC) ::I kept the reword of the paragraph, as it was speculation. It's not speculation to state aspects of their relationship found in novels. That's what the background notes in articles are partially for(and it is what apocrypha sections are for); they are outside the normal article. 31dot (talk) 15:19, April 8, 2013 (UTC) :ah ok. I recently read my old DC comics that tie-in between these movies so I added a background note about that as well (I even found a scan of that specific part online http://www.chud.com/community/t/115578/the-star-trek-thread/2050#post_3021156 ). I didn't add it before because I was unsure if novels and comics were relevant, at all, even though that comic is somehow consistent with canon and makes an interesting observation about her character, beyond the Scotty/Uhura thing itself. :I'm still unsure if these things fit here, should we mention all the novels then? (in one Uhura married Stonn!) and shouldn't these things be moved to the Apocrypha section like in other articles? ::If there's going to be any more than a few lines of a bgnote, then the info should go in the Apocrypha section (with perhaps a bgnote link to that section). The Apocrypha section is really meant for only the most significant information revealed about a character in a noncanon work(such as a character getting married in a novel). It isn't meant to discuss characters actions in novels in general, that's what Memory Beta is for. 31dot (talk) 01:54, April 9, 2013 (UTC) Alternate Names - Removed Comments I have removed the following comments which were marked as lacking citation for some time: From what I can gather on the interwebs, this is something that started in various fanzines. I can't find anything solid connecting it to anything more "official" (like a licensed product). Without it, it's just really speculation from "some fans". , when Paramount Pictures revised canon policies. This possible name appears to not have been accepted outside the original source.}} This is just a digression into canon policies of ST, which isn't really relevant to the article.--Cleanse ( talk ) 10:31, October 27, 2017 (UTC)